Guin v. Guin

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SOMERVILLE, J.
• Citation: Guin v. Guin, 196 Ala. 221, 72 So. 74 (Ala. 1916)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 91
• Parties: GUIN v. GUIN et al.

72 So. 74

196 Ala. 221

GUIN v. GUIN et al.

6 Div. 91

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 18, 1916

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lamar County; W.H. Simpson, Chancellor.

Bill by Eliza B. Guin against G.L. Guin, her husband, and others. From a decree for respondents, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The bill alleges that Mrs. Eliza Guin gave $85 to her husband with instructions to use it, as previously proposed by him in the purchase of a tract of land, the deed to be made to Mrs. Guin. Her husband paid for the land with the money, but took the deed (dated November 25, 1907) to himself, which condition of the title remained unknown to the wife for several years. The bill seeks to establish a resulting trust in complainant, and to enjoin the respondent J.W. Dorroh from enforcing a mortgage on this land, which was executed jointly by the husband and wife (July 24, 1908) to secure a debt of the husband, and transferred for value after maturity by the mortgagee (July 1, 1914) to said Dorroh; and, further, to enjoin the collection by said Dorroh of a judgment in tort recovered by him against the husband (August 29, 1912) upon which execution was issued and delivered to the sheriff in March, 1914. This judgment was also recorded under the statute on September 1, 1913. It appears that respondent Dorroh was without notice of complainant's alleged equity in the land until July 1, 1914, just before he bought the mortgage. It further appears from the testimony of complainant's husband that he informed the husband of Mrs. Hodge--the original mortgagee--who was acting as her agent in negotiating the loan, that the land belonged to Mrs Guin, but that she would sign the mortgage with him. It also appears that complainant's husband verbally contracted for the purchase of this land from the owner in 1906, and took possession and made valuable improvements, but paid no part of the purchase money prior to November 25, 1907, since which time it has been their common homestead. The testimony of complainant and her husband shows that he received her money as alleged in the bill, and paid it to the grantor before and as a consideration for the execution of the deed which he procured and made to himself in violation of his agreement and her instruction. Other than J.W. Dorroh, G.L Guin, the husband, was made party respondent, and confessed the bill. Dorroh answered, denying the facts alleged in support of complainant's equity, and claims the right to enforce the mortgage, as purchaser, denying notice of the said equity to the mortgagee or her husband; also claims the right to enforce the judgment as a judgment lienholder without notice by a cross-bill. He prays that the land be sold by the decree of the court for the satisfaction of the mortgage and the judgment.

Kelley & Young, of Vernon, for appellant.

Walter Nesmith, of Vernon, for appellees.

SOMERVILLE J.

To establish a simple resulting trust--as where one person furnishes the money for the purchase of land, and the title is erroneously or wrongfully taken in the name of another--it is well settled that the money must have been paid before or at the time of the purchase. Tilford v. Torrey, 53 Ala. 120; Preston v. McMillan, 58 Ala. 84; Lehman v. Lewis, 62 Ala. 129; Long v. King, 117 Ala. 423, 23 So. 534; Haney v. Legg, 129 Ala. 619, 30 So. 34, 87 Am.St.Rep. 81.

The "time of the purchase," however, within the operation of this rule, can only mean the time of the acquisition of the title, whether legal or equitable. Any other application of the rule would make of it a senseless technicality, and the language of the authorities does not so require.

In the present case, complainant paid the money before the purchase by her husband, for up to the time he received the deed there had been no purchase, but only a verbal agreement, abortive in operation, and void in law.

A trust therefore resulted in favor of complainant when the real and only purchase was made on November 25, 1907; the evidence on this point being full, clear, and convincing. Carter v. Challen, 83 Ala. 135, 3 So. 313.

But "no such trusts, whether implied by law, or created or declared by the parties, can defeat the title of creditors or purchasers for a valuable...